We will re-approve posts/comments if you edit them to remove any inappropriate content and alert us to the changes.

No Personal Attacks. You may attack a person's arguments, but not the person. You may attack a belief system's beliefs, or prominent leaders, but not people in the belief system.

No Low-Effort Posts. All posts must either contain an argument, or ask a question that could lead to debate. Either way, you must state your own views on the matter in the body of the text post. If you quote or link to something for the purpose of starting a debate, you must provide your own argument for or against it.

English Is The Medium of Exchange.

No Meta Posts. We ask you refrain from addressing the sub in this manner without first receiving approval from the mods to do so.

Banning Rule. A user will be banned from /r/DebateReligion if the mods conclude from the user's post(s) that the user is deliberately antagonizing, particularly disruptive to the orderly conduct of respectful discourse, or apparently uninterested in participating in open discussion.

Filter posts by subject

The ModWatch

The ModWatch are your community representatives whose job it is to ensure that the moderation of /r/DebateReligion is conducted in a transparent and earnest a manner. If you suspect some unfair or suspicious moderation practices and your attempts to resolve the issue directly with the moderators has left you feeling dissatisfied, the ModWatch are empowered to investigate and report back to the community.

That the Gospels are mostly accurate tellings of historical events (even if we take out the miracles)

That the book of Acts is a mostly accurate telling of historical events in the early church

That belief in the resurrection happened somewhat quickly after the supposed events

Now I don't have any slam-dunk proofs that these things aren't true, but perhaps you can now see that there are a lot of ways to approach doubt on this topic other than your simplistic "who created the lie" approach.

There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that the Gospels are "mythical literature" (as a descriptive literary genre, not just as a way of saying "that didn't happen"). If this is true, then they might not have even intended (by the authors) to depict historical events.

To expand on this just slightly, the broad overview of (non-evangelical) biblical scholars looks something like:

The gospels were written, by anonymous authors, somewhere between 70AD and 100AD, possibly even as late as 130AD.

These were based loosely on some existing oral traditions, or possibly some written collections of sayings ("Q" document, for example)

Mark was written first, then Matthew, then Luke, then John. We know this because each successive Gospel borrowed and modified from earlier ones, with significant (and often contradictory) changes

There is also significant evidence of infighting between early Christian sects, some of which may have had entirely different gospels. The ones we have simply illustrate the "winner" of the political/social/theological disagreements. Other gospels were either deliberately destroyed, or simply were not actively preserved, and therefore no longer exist.

All this means that the resurrection narratives might not have been in place (or widely agreed) until much later, making the wording of your question moot.

Ok, even if I agreed with your extremely detailed critique of Carrier's scholarship [/sarcasm], he's not the only one with this view of the gospels.

And my other points don't necessarily rely on it, either. Even the mainstream consensus view (of the gospels being written between 70 and 130AD), leaves decades of time for the story of the resurrection to develop and morph over time without it having being created by one specific "liar" (to use the terminology of the original question).

Or maybe later readers/copyists interpreted some writings in a way that the original author didn't intend. Or maybe the document was originally written with metaphorical stories (parables) but also a "secret meaning" just for the elect, but the secret meaning was lost over time. Or maybe oral stores changed slowly over time.

Lots of other possibilities besides "one guy made this up and knew he was lying when he wrote this down". (Which is still a valid possibility, I suppose, I just haven't heard anyone espouse that theory.)